Marine Corps Veteran Questions DHS on Huge Ammo BuysFederal agency has now acquired enough bullets to wage 30 year war!Steve Watson & Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Mar 7, 2013http://www.lookintoit.org/DHS-Preparing-For-7-Year-War-Against-American-People.htmlA military veteran has questioned why the Department of Homeland Security is purchasing enormous amounts of ammunition, making it clear that he believes the bullets cannot possibly be for training purposes.Commenting on the DHS’s procurement of roughly 2 billion hollow point bullets over the course of the last year, former Marine Richard Mason told reporters with WHPTV News in Pennsylvania that he has serious concerns.
“We never trained with hollow points, we didn’t even see hollow points my entire four and a half years in the Marine Corps,” Mason said.

When questioned recently, DHS official Peggy Dixon claimed the bullets were bought in bulk to save money and were for training purposes only. However, hollow point bullets, are very expensive in ammunition terms, and it is highly unusual to use such bullets for target practice.

“Why would they need all those hollow points,” former marine Mason asked “why would they need all those ball rounds just for training?”
Record federal government purchases have coincided with national shortages of ammunition in gun stores, leading some to believe that it is a deliberate tactic to deprive gun owners, or something much worse.
To put the DHS’ ammunition solicitations in perspective, during the height of active battle operations in Iraq, US soldiers used 5.5 million rounds of ammunition a month. Extrapolating the figures, the DHS has purchased enough bullets over the last year to wage a full scale war for almost 30 years.
Last September, the DHS also purchased no less than 7,000 fully automatic assault rifles, labeling them “Personal Defense Weapons.”
Purchases of large quantities of body armor by the DHS has also caused shortages. Last year, the agency also put out an urgent order for “riot gear” in anticipation of civil unrest. The agency has also ordered bullet-proof checkpoint booths and hired hundreds of new security guards to protect government buildings over the course of the last 12 months.
There is also strong evidence to suggest that the DHS has recently bought around 2,700 armored military style trucks. The agency has also cemented a $2 million dollar relationship with a contractor that recently had to apologize for producing shooting targets of pregnant women, children and elderly gun owners depicted in residential settings.
Coupled with continued and sustained secrecy surrounding these purchases and contracts, many Americans are convinced that the federal government is “stockpiling” in preparation for “civil unrest.”
The DHS’ primary concern is now centered around thwarting “homegrown terrorism,” but information produced and used by the DHS to train its personnel routinely equates conservative and libertarian political ideology with domestic extremism.A study funded by the Department of Homeland Security that was leaked last year characterizes Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists. Many other recent similar government and law enforcement publications, papers and studies have also pushed this notion.As we explained in a recent article, generating mass social dislocation has been an admitted tool used by the World Bank and the IMF to create the necessary chaos to loot major economies.
As respected investigative reporter Greg Palast exposed in 2001, the World Bank and the IMF have honed a technique that has allowed them to asset-strip numerous other countries in the past – that technique has come to be known at the “IMF riot,” a process of scaring off investors and causing government bankruptcies by fostering unrest.Also See:DHS Arming for War with AmericansInfowars.com
March 12, 2013
The Denver Post, on February 15th, ran an Associated Press article entitled Homeland Security aims to buy 1.6b rounds of ammo, so far to little notice. It confirmed that the Department of Homeland Security has issued an open purchase order for 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition. As reported elsewhere, much of this purchase order is for rounds forbidden by international law for use in war, along with a frightening amount specialized for snipers. Also reported elsewhere, at the height of the Iraq War the Army was expending less than 6 million rounds a month. Therefore 1.6 billion rounds would be enough to sustain a hot war for 20+ years. In America.

http://www.naturalnews.com/038844_DHS_assault_weapons_documents.html
(NaturalNews) In yet another huge blow to the rhetoric and narrative of the Obama administration and its desire to disarm the American public, a DHS bid has been uncovered (see documents below) showing that the Department of Homeland Security recently put out an offer to purchase7,000 full-auto "assault weapons" to be used domestically, inside the USA.
Keep in mind that President Obama is on the record saying, "AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals; that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities."
But it seems he really means they don't belong on the streets of our cities unless they are in the hands of homeland security enforcers, in which case they can be FULL-AUTO assault weapons.
The DHS bid for 7,000 full-auto assault weapons is found by clicking here. The original credit for discovering this goes, to my best knowledge, to Awr Hawkins at Breitbart.com.In the hands of the government, they're called "Personal Defense Weapons"
The juiciest part of this bid is the use of the phrase "Personal Defense Weapons" to
Apparently, when YOU hold an AR-15, it's an "assault rifle." But magically, if you hand that same rifle to an armed government homeland security enforcer, it instantly transforms itself into a "personal defense weapon."
The request for bid actually says:DHSand its components have a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and / or when maximum concealment is required.
So there it is, right in black and white: DHS enforcers need full-auto AR-15s which are "suitable for personal defense in close quarters" and for "maximum concealment."
But if you or I make the same claim, suddenly we are branded lunatics by the fringe left and all the gun grabbers across America who apparently have no clue that their own government is arming up like never before.
Senator Feinstein, the gun-grabbing Senator from California, says she wants to take all the guns from all Americans. "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," she says on the record. But while Mr. and Mrs. America are turning in their guns, 'roid-head DHS goons are arming to the teeth with full-auto assault rifles.
This is all on top of the 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition the U.S. government has already stockpiled, as was discovered last year. What kind of government wants to domestically stockpile ammo and full-auto weapons, putting them in the hands of domestic agents who have nothing whatsoever to do with overseas wars? Well, the kind of government that plans to NEED 1.6 billion rounds of ammo and full-auto assault weapons, of course.Read some language from the contract bid: Pistol grips, full-auto and moreClick here to see the bid.
Here's some selected text from the bid:ICE/Mission Support-DC
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Office of Acquisition Management
801 I Street NW, Suite 980
Washington DC 20536
Troy Teachey, troy.teachey@dhs.gov
Delivery Location Code: ICE/AS/NFTTUICE Natl Firearm Tactical Trng Unit
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
500 12th ST SW, Washington DC 205365.56X45mm NATO Personal Defense Weapon
During the base period and four option periods of this contract the maximum ceiling is $9,800,000.Click here for the PDF document containing the following text:The scope of this contract is to provide a total of up to 7,000 5.56x45mm North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) personal defense weapons (PDW) throughout the life of this contract to numerous Department of Homeland Security components.
The action shall be select-fire (capable of semi-automatic and automatic fire).
The action shall be capable of accepting all standard NATO STANAG 20 and 30 round M16 magazines (NSN 1005-00-921-5004) and Magpul 30 round PMAG (NSN 1005-01-576-5159). The magazine shall have a capacity to hold thirty (30) 5.56x45mm NATO rounds.
The receiver top shall be equipped with an integral MIL-STD-1913 Picatinny rail for mounting sights and other accessories.
The fire control selector shall have three positions; safe, semi-automatic, and automatic.
The pistol grip shall be a fixed, vertical pistol grip constructed of a durable material.DHS admits AR-15 with 30-round magazine is "suitable for personal defense use in close quarters"
This government document openly admits that AR-15s with 30-round magazines and capable of fully automatic fire are "suitable for personal defense" in close quarters (i.e. your home).
CNN, of course, doesn't want you to ever hear that. Nor does Feinstein, Cuomo, Schumer, Obama, Eric Holder or any other gun grabbers. Even while their own government is arming up with 1.6 billion rounds of ammo and 7,000 full-auto "assault rifles" (plus lots more in other bids), they are trying to completely disarm the American citizenry through new gun registration and confiscation legislation.
The whole point of all this, of course, is to create firepower disparity between the government and the citizenry... To disarm the People while arming up the government agents who operate domestically. That way, the people can be forced at gunpoint into doing almost anything the oppressive government demands! (Taking vaccine shots, giving up private property, turning over farms and businesses, etc.)
What's really hard-hitting about this is that the radical left keeps claiming things like "no one needs an assault rifle for personal defense." Okay, if that true, then the Department of Homeland Security should abandon all such rifles first! Let's see DHS turn in all its rifles and ammo, thereby setting an example of the "fact" that "nobody needs an assault rifle" for self defense.
In truth, a full-auto AR-15 is an outstanding weapon for self defense, which is exactly why DHS is buying thousands of them. Nothing stops bad guys faster than a barrage of high-velocity lead aimed in their direction. Again, that's why DHS wants these rifles in the first place. One of these rifles in the hands of a citizen could have stopped the Sandy Hook shooting in seconds.Pay attention to the word games (which are really mind games)
As you observe the highly manipulated gun control argument, pay special attention to the word games you're being subjected to:
An AR-15 in the hands of a citizen is an "assault rifle."
But an AR-15 in the hands of a DHS agent is a "Personal Defense Weapon."
A full-auto-capable rifle in the hands of a citizen is called a "machine gun."
A full-auto-capable rifle in the hands of a DHS agent is called a "select-fire rifle."
According to the media, all government agents with assault rifles are presumed innocent and assumed to be stopping crime.
But all private citizens with assault rifles are presumed guilty and assumed to be causing crime.
When one citizen goes crazy and murders a bunch of people, the call goes out for ALL citizens to be stripped of their firearms.
But when one government agent goes crazy and murders a bunch of people, the calls goes out for MORE guns to be placed in the hands of MORE government agents!Thank you, DHS, for admitting the truth
In summary, it looks like we actually need to thank the DHS for admitting the truth that Obama won't: AR-15s are personal defense weapons, suitable for use in close quarters, especially when equipped with 30-round magazines.
That's why I own one, and it's why DHS wants thousands more (but theirs are full-auto, while mine is only semi-auto).
As a general rule, all freedom-loving Americans should want the same firepower their domestic government possesses. That's the whole point behind the Second Amendment, and it represents the distribution of power in a free society.
But instead of firepower being equal in America today, DHS is using our taxpayer dollars to purchase thousands of full-auto weapons for their own agents. This is apparently being done under ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement).
This brings up the question for another entire article, and here's the question: Why does immigration need 7,000 full-auto assault rifles? Is there a friggin' Mexican invasion planned that nobody told me about? Is ICE going to invade Mexico and start a shooting war with the Mexican drug cartels?
Seriously: Why does ICE need 7,000 full-auto assault rifles? And why does DHS need 1.6 billion rounds of ammo?

(NaturalNews) When DHS purchased 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition to be used domestically, inside the USA, and I said this looks like a government agency preparing for war with the American people, I was told, "That's crazy. The government would never do that."
When DHS purchased 7,000 full-auto assault rifles to be used inside the United States, calling them "personal defense weapons" that could be used in urban warfare, I was once again told I was crazy for suggesting the government was arming up for war with the American people.
Now DHS has retrofitted 2,717 "Navistar Defense" armored vehicles for service on the streets of America. Click here to see pictures and specs for this vehicle from the manufacturer's website.
These vehicles, which people who don't know any better might call "light tanks," are specifically designed to resist mines and ambush attacks. They use bulletproof windows and are designed to withstand small arms fire, including smaller-caliber rifles such as .223 Remington.
The retrofit was completed in May, 2012, and these 2,700+ armored vehicles are now ready to deploy across the streets of America, reports Modern Survival Blog, the primary source for this story.A domestic arms race

Importantly, none of these armaments -- billions of bullets, thousands of full-auto assault rifles and thousands of armored assault vehicles -- are being purchased by the Pentagon for use in wars overseas. Instead, these are being purchased by DHS for use inside the United States... on the streets of America.

This is a domestic department of the federal government that is clearly and unambiguously arming for war against the American people.

This war will also involve the use of armed military drones attacking American citizens, which is exactly why the Obama administration now claims the legal authority to assassinate Americans on U.S. soil using militarized drones.
This is at the same time the American people are arming up like never before as well. U.S. ammunition manufacturers are currently producing over one billion rounds per week. All that ammo is flying off the shelves, with virtually nothing remaining in stock anywhere.
Magazine manufacturers like ProMag Industries are backordered for over a year, and gun manufacturers are anywhere from 6 months to 18 months behind schedule, desperately trying to keep up with customer demand that continues to grow. I called Desert Tactical Arms today and confirmed their guns are running six months behind schedule. This is the company that makes the portable .338 Lapua and .50 BMG rifles favored by U.S. troops in activities such as so-called "hard target interdiction." (i.e. killing vehicles.)
As the government arms race continues to stockpile weapons and ammo in the hands of DHS, the American people are increasingly turning to large-caliber weapons for their own stockpiles. Just last week, I recently went shooting here in Texas where we had three .50 cal Barrett BMG rifles, plus two .338 Lapua magnum sniper rifles, all firing on some thick steel targets. The targets were decimated, and every single shooter in our group was able to put lead on target, even from long-range distances.Holocaust deniers and DHS deniers

Of course, there are people who deny DHS is engaged in an arms race, just as there are Holocaust deniers who deny Hitler ever took guns away from the Jews (before committing mass murder). Those deniers either claim that these purchases are not happening (but they are), or that the government is only buying such large quantities "to save money."

This is a distraction, of course. You don't "save money" buying things you don't need. Clearly, someone at the top of DHS believes the government needs these armored vehicles and full-auto assault rifles deployed on the streets of America.

But the bigger question -- and this is the question the mainstream media refuses to even ask -- is WHY does DHS need:

• 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition

• 7,000+ assault rifles

• 2,700+ armored assault vehicles

Unless you're insane or a denier, the answer is clear: DHS is expecting a large-scale domestic conflict.

Why is DHS expecting a domestic war?

So then, the commonsense question becomes: Why is DHS expecting a domestic war?

I've asked this question of many of my contacts, and what I keep hearing is that an economic collapse is fast approaching, and DHS is likely going to use all this equipment to try to maintain government power during the chaos and riots that are sure to follow the economic collapse. This equipment will all be needed to "maintain order on the streets," I'm told.

But that's only one possible scenario. Another scenario involves the criminally-run government announcing a nationwide gun confiscation scheme (just as Sen. Feinstein says she wants), then attempting to defend itself against the inevitable civil war that will result. The most likely outcome here is that DHS will only be able to control the areas that have been forcibly disarmed such as Chicago and New York City. They will be utterly unable to hold rural territories where freedom-loving Americans have already decided to fight back against tyranny no matter what the cost.

Yet a third scenario could involve government anticipation of a nuclear attack from North Korea followed by a "Red Dawn" land invasion from China or Korea. And DHS is here to fight for freedom and defeat the communists. (And if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell ya... far more likely is that DHS wants to welcome in the communists!)

This domestic war machine was built by claiming it was for terrorists

Keep in mind that DHS was created by President Bush in response to the 9/11 terror attacks. In fact, since 2001, the U.S. federal government has built a domestic war infrastructure by claiming it was all being constructed to protect us from the terrorists.

Now, in 2013, the government has "flipped the script" on who the threat is. According to Janet Napolitano, head of DHS, the real threat to America is now returning veterans and gun owners. So the feds have this massive armament infrastructure and spy grid lockdown over the entire population, and it turns out it was all built not for terrorists but for YOU.

The terrorists are nowhere to be found in all this, by the way. Every single terror plot halted by the FBI is a terror plot that was literally dreamed up, planned and nearly carried out by the FBI.
TSA has caught exactly zero terrorists trying to sneak through airport security.
The "war on terror" is and always has been a complete hoax. The purpose of the hoax was to provide a cover story for the building up of a massive domestic military force to be used against the American people when the time comes.
That's what we are really seeing with the purchase of ammo, automatic weapons and armored assault vehicles. This is why cable barriers are being erected on highways across the country. And this is why DHS has recently begun redacting the requested quantities from its public bid documents... in order to make sure the public can no longer learn how much it's stockpiling weapons and ammo.But none of this is real, right?

Astonishingly, the vast majority of Americans remain completely unaware of any of this. For those mainstream sheeple, anything that doesn't appear on CNN must not be real.

So DHS really isn't buying 1.6 billion rounds of ammo, 7,000+ assault rifles, or 2,700+ armored mine-resistant assault vehicles. All of us who are reporting these purchases are "conspiracy theorists," we're all told, even though what we're reporting on is absolutely true.

Remember this: Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs has now publicly admitted he was ordered by the White House to deny the existence of the U.S. militarized drone program even while the program existed and was known to be real. Denial has always been a key tactic for any government preparing to do something unethical or criminal.
But I've been told by some seemingly convincing people that none of this is real. It's all just a bad dream, you see, and soon you will wake up and find yourself in the land of the free, where there isn't poison in the crops and there isn't mercury in the vaccines. The President love you, and corporations are all ethical. Senators are humanitarians who put the good of the country ahead of their own selfish greed. The FDA stops censoring the truth about nutritional therapies and the USDA outlaws GMOs.
That's the delusional world that 90% of Americans believe they live in, and they even believe that as long as they just "believe" something, then reality doesn't even matter. Belief IS reality, according to the "Law of Attraction" followers, and if you just believe the government is good, then your belief will make it so.
That's a fascinating bit of self-hypnosis, because DHS doesn't care what you believe. It is stockpiling guns, ammo and armored vehicles for some very real reason. This isn't their imagination: it's hardware.
And hardware is rarely accumulated in such large quantities unless it is deemed necessary for some specific purpose. It seems that the American people -- delusional or otherwise -- may soon discover what purpose DHS has in mind.

I first brought it up with specificity in my article titled The Benghazi Deception on May 16, comparing Obama’s missing “18 1/2 hours” during the time four Americans were being murdered to the 18 1/2 minute erasure of the Watergate tapes of the Nixon era. Exactly one week later, I clearly illustrated that Chris Wallace repeatedly asked David Pfeiffer, a top Obama official, “where was Obama” during the night when four American’s were murdered in Benghazi. Mr. Wallace actually did what a good newsman should do, and repeated the question no fewer than eight-(8) times, but never received an answer or explanation. Nothing, nada, zilch. Crickets.

Despite the professional tenacity and persistence of Mr. Wallace, Pfeiffer continually dodged the question, called his whereabouts irrelevant, and basically told the American people that where “the one” was, and what he was doing was none of our business.

The speculations riseOn May 23, a week after my column appeared, Rich Lowry, writing for Politico, asked Pfeiffer to “humor us” by merely telling us where Obama was and what he was doing on that “mystery night.” Mr. Lowry writes: “Obama’s actions and nonactions on that terrible night are a blank spot in his presidency. We simply don’t know much about them, and the White House has always been perfectly content to leave it that way.”

Anyone who has ever raised a teenager knows that a parent’s “need to know” is directly proportional to the teenager’s need to keep their silence about some event in which they have engaged. The harder the teenager fights to keep their misdeeds under wraps, the more important it is for the responsible parent to learn exactly what took place - with precision. In the case of four murdered Americans and a Commander in Chief who was obviously MIA, the American people not only deserve to know, but as responsible Americans, we need to know the location and activities of Obama during this period of murder and mayhem.

On May 26, we saw the stakes being raised in an article by Kevin DuJan in HillBuzz under the title “Barack Obama Was High on Cocaine During ‘The Missing Hours’ of the Benghazi Attack Last September.” Mr. DuJan wrote: “If you’ve ever known anyone who is a drug addict, you’d see it’s obvious that Barack Obama was high on cocaine the night of Benghazi; it is the only logical explanation for his disappearance and the White House’s refusal to comment on what he was doing at the time. Since this was a night of great crisis for our country, the only logical reason that the White House won’t explain where the president was is if this man was high as a kite on illegal narcotics at the time.”

Mr. DuJan also commented about an e-mail he received from his friend Justine, an actress and model who ran in some interesting if not salacious circles back in the 1970s with “closeted gay men” like Rock Hudson. According to the article, Justine’s first instinct is that Obama might have been with (and we’re talking in a Biblical sense here) Reggie Love and didn’t want to be disturbed.

Sex, Lies and MurderPerhaps the much maligned author Larry Sinclair has some clairvoyant powers, or more likely he does speak from experience when he titled his book Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair, Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder. I found it extremely interesting that Mr. Sinclair described, in graphic detail, Barack Hussein Obama’s reported cocaine use, the sex, and even murder in his book, none of it, however, related to the night of Benghazi. Such activities were reserved for the back of a car and the anonymity of hotels while serving in the Illinois State Senate.

If we follow the line of thought offered by Messrs Lowry and DuJan, the interesting insight of “Justine,” and the written and spoken claims of Larry Sinclair, are we not seeing a disturbing emergence of a possible pattern of conduct? Given the written claims of Mr. Sinclair alone, are we, as citizens, not supposed to be a bit suspicious in the absence of any substantive information pertaining to Obama’s locations and activities on the night of September 11, 2012?

Those who have raised teenagers, are your senses not a bit troubled… are you not the least bit uncomfortable?

Writing as someone who has raised four teenagers and spent over a quarter century as an investigator in the private sector, I can tell you that my parental and investigative senses are as strong as the tingle that existed in Chris Matthew’s leg, although it’s not from excitement. Furthermore, I interviewed Larry Sinclair several months before his book was published, and found him to be extremely credible and forthright. Unlike top Obama official David Pfeiffer, not once did he refuse to answer or dodge a question, regardless of how uncomfortable such questions were. And I did not have to ask one question eight times in eight different ways.

Ending the mysteryAll the White House has to do is produce the authenticated logs of POTUS activities and his location that are maintained for every minute of every day within the walls of the house of the people. If he has nothing to hide, then produce the records of who he was with, what he was doing, when he was doing it, where he was during this missing time, and why.

According to my source within the intelligence community, the answer to this question is one of the most critically important and revealing pieces of information that is being deliberately hidden from the American public.

There is no need to further insult the American people with elusiveness and semantics, or add insult to the injury and death of Americans on the night of September 11, 2012. We need straight answers, and we need them now. Stop acting like your teenagers who believe that they are smarter than their parents, or suspects that can outsmart the questions of professional investigators with convoluted semantics. Answer the question.

Note: Author Larry Sinclair will be a guest on The Hagmann & Hagmann Report at a date to be announced to discuss his experiences with Barack Obama and to provide his thoughts about the night in question.

Douglas Hagmann, founder & director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, and a multi-state licensed private investigative agency. Doug began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public awareness through his website.Doug can be reached at: director@homelandsecurityus.com

*******

The Benghazi deception

Benghazi, we have a Commander-in-Chief who, while acting in that capacity, fits the very definition of MIA

It is interesting that the corporate media, like sharks attracted to chum in the water, is just now appearing to treat Benghazi as a political scandal similar to Watergate that took down former U.S. President Richard M. Nixon in his second term. While many people see the comparison, I not only see the comparison, but also sense a collusion of a different, more nefarious and less conspicuous type as well.

*******

*******

As the details of Benghazi are beginning to emerge from “whistleblowers” and the murderous events are being rightfully elevated to the proper realm of criminal conspiracy, other scandals have suddenly seemed to erupt, almost as if cued by a complicit choreographer. Most egregious misdeeds of the Internal Revenue Service, for example, that allegedly targeted Conservative groups, from 501(c)3 organizations to any group with Tea party or Constitution in their names, were suddenly “revealed.”

Other scandals of lesser significance, but nonetheless poking at the embers of public ire and intolerance are popping up as well. Watching the people who are reading the multiple news headlines on various news aggregator sites are like watching spectators at Wimbledon, as their heads move from side to side as they follow the ball in play. The white noise of new problems are constantly erupting, resulting in a feeding frenzy in the waters surrounding the Executive branch.

While fascinating to watch, has anyone stopped to consider that the process of chumming the waters with a flurry of cascading news events, combined with a docu-dump of 100 pages of Benghazi e-mails is actually a methodically orchestrated diversion? What is it we are not supposed to be seeing amid the white noise of new controversies of varying values? Are we being told that we’re aboard the Queen Mary and being directed to look over the port side at the antics of the sharks attracted by the chumming of the waters while we’re actually aboard the RMS Lusitania sailing through the Irish Channel on the afternoon of May 7, 1915? Meanwhile, a torpedo fired from a German U-boat is traveling directly for our starboard side, and is about to take the entire ship down.

Like a levy that has been suspiciously breached, the informational flood created by these news events is without recent precedent. The timing of this flood is of particularly critical importance. The headlines are diverting our attention away from a critical window of investigative value relating to Benghazi. Could it be that we’re seeing a form of force majeure being implemented to overwhelm and distract us from something far more important to truth seekers and consequently, much more lethal to Obama’s second term? Perhaps the Cloward-Piven strategy adapted and modified for the modern news cycles of today?

The Watergate-Benghazi time continuum

It has become common practice to use the Watergate “scandal” as the basis for any controversy involving the President or the White House, having set some arbitrary high-water mark for behavioral tolerance involving a sitting president. Watergate is commonly used to describe an intricate web of criminal deception that took place during former President Richard Nixon’s second term in the White House, and is routinely identified as the cause that brought down Nixon’s presidency.

A critical component of the Watergate investigation involved audio surreptitiously recorded by a little-known audio taping system installed in the Oval Office in early 1971 that captured nearly all utterances by anyone meeting with the president. During the investigation of the Watergate scandal, the recordings pertaining to relevant discussions were the subject of investigative demands and subpoenas by the investigating committee. Submission of the tapes became a bloody battleground between Nixon and the House Select Committee. After months of fighting, the tapes were finally surrendered and an unexplained 18 1/2 minute gap, or totality of gaps, was discovered. Analysis of that effacement determined that it was the result of at least five separate manual erasures, verifying that the missing time memorialized by these tapes was no accident.

Whether it’s Watergate or Benghazi, there’s one piece of evidence in both of these criminal cover-ups from which the actors involved try to deflect your attention by any means possible. It’s the proverbial garden path plotted by the architects of deception themselves. Following this garden path through the winding turns to its origins will expose that one nugget of information needed to unravel the lies and cover-ups elusive to so many. It is a highly protected secret nestled among other less damning facts, diversions and deceptions.

Benghazi is no exception, but instead provides a textbook example of diversion from the golden nugget hidden inside a crusted shell made to look like all others. So, just what is that particular nugget of criminal naughtiness?

Erasure of evidence: Present day

The nugget that is being hidden here is not content of the memos relating to matters of diplomatic security, but something far more nefarious and elusive by its mere simplicity. Like the questions that surrounded the mysterious 18 1/2 minute gap in the Watergate tapes forty-years ago, there is a period of missing time that few seem anxious to address. By order of magnitude, however, this missing time is far greater than anything we saw with Watergate. Instead of 18 1/2 minutes of presidential time, it’s nearly 18 1/2 hours of time involving the actions, utterances, commands or lack thereof of Barack Hussein Obama as Americans were being killed a half-world away.

Expose that nugget and I suspect the findings will be far more damaging, far more troubling, and exceedingly more alarming than anyone has begun to imagine. It is this mystical missing period of time where many clues exist. Exactly where was Barack Hussein Obama following his 5:00 meeting in the Oval Office until the next day? Where wasn’t he? It’s almost as if the Wizard of Oz himself waved his magical wand to divert attention away from those lost hours.

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s crystal ball

It’s almost as if Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2008 campaign commercial relating to the proverbial 3:00 a.m. telephone call was precognitive and eerily accurate. If not answering the calls to save American lives during the darkest hours of the night, could he have perhaps found a glimmer of light from a

bad moon rising from which to order the positioning assets and personnel in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief? If not, then did not Hillary Clinton accurately predict the ringing but unanswered phone with crystal-ball like accuracy?
Based on Hillary Rodham Clinton’s unspoken ambitions for a White House bid in 2016, why aren’t partisan mouthpiece sycophants like Media Matters and Think Progress illuminating her prophetic warnings instead of shamelessly working overtime to politicize legitimate questions surrounding the murders in Benghazi? Instead of prepositioning political capital on behalf of Clinton, they are still in full defensive mode to divert all attention away from Obama’s activities taking place under the cover of a shadowy darkness.
Few have demanded, in the form and fashion of Watergate, to know where Obama was during this most critical time in American history, who he was with, and what he was doing - far beyond the snippets we have been provided. Why does the request for specificity for Obama’s activities during this very precise segment of time be shaping up to be some type of “third rail” to the Benghazi cover-up?
We know that the Secret Service, in tandem with the National Security Council perform joint drills for such emergencies such as this. The Secret Service, among others, possess very specific logs from that night that could provide answers. Why has no one with the authority to do so requested a full accounting of Obama’s location and activities?
Interestingly, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s apparent powers of clairvoyance nearly a half-decade before Benghazi is being ignored rather than celebrated, and questions, much like an incessantly ringing telephone, are being diverted instead of answered.

The missing 18 1/2 hours

Perhaps it was fate that placed a much younger Hillary Rodham to serve on the staff assembled for the impeachment of former President Nixon. Students of history know that her activities in this position were not themselves without scandal, but that is another issue for another time. Nonetheless, the outrage caused by the infamous 18 1/2 minute gap of audio of conversations between Nixon and others in the Oval Office during a critical time of high level discussions between Nixon and his closest aides was pivotal in the impeachment proceedings.
Presently, Americans are faced with another erasure of time well beyond the 18 1/2 minutes that was a focus of the Watergate investigation. It is exponentially longer and by orders of magnitude much more prescient to the events of that September day. Today, the questions far exceed “what did he know and when did he know it” of the Nixon era, and well into “where was he, where wasn’t he, what was he doing, and who was he with? The former refers to the potential planning of a cover-up while the latter refers to a potential cover-up itself. It is a difference with a significant distinction.
With Watergate, we have a deliberate erasure of time that took place long after the primary criminal act occurred. With Benghazi, we have a Commander-in-Chief who, while acting in that capacity, fits the very definition of MIA, or missing-in-action. Not AWOL as some have proclaimed, but MIA. A schedule not erased after the fact, but an itinerary deliberately withheld from the purview of us all. The Commander-in-Chief inexplicably went “off the grid” during a time of national and international crisis. He became MIA, but why?
We are often cautioned not to ascribe conspiracy to that which can be attributed to incompetence. In this case, however, incompetence falls woefully short when a Commander-in-Chief becomes missing in action, especially during a time of such national and international crisis.
It is this golden nugget that is hidden inside a crusted shell that is the subject of diversion. That is the reason an obscure and inane video was initially grabbed from the inventory of ready-made diversions until it could no longer withstand reasonable scrutiny. His MIA status is the reason behind the $70 million public relations expenditure - no, payoff - by the Department of State to broadcast an apologetic television message across the Middle East.
It is on this issue that we must never lose focus until we are provided answers, wherever and to whomever they might lead.
If you think this matter is trivial, then you are not thinking big enough.

Douglas J. Hagmann and his son, Joe Hagmann host The Hagmann & Hagmann Report, a live Internet radio program broadcast each weeknight from 8:00-10:00 p.m. ET.

Douglas Hagmann, founder & director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, and a multi-state licensed private investigative agency. Doug began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public awareness through his website.

Who knows the whole truth about why Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty along with State Department officials Chris Stevens and Sean Smith died in Benghazi 11 September 2012?

It’s now public knowledge that the ever evolvingofficial administration stories on Benghazi are all bold faced lies. It’s clear that the four Americans who were brutally murdered in Benghazi did not have to die. What’s not clear yet, is who is responsible for these murders? Nothing the Obama administration has told the people about Benghazi is true… but who is responsible?General Carter Ham and Admiral Charles M. Gaouette know the answer to this question. Where are Ham and Gaouette today? Why hasn’t Issa’s investigative committee called these decorated Military officers to testify before the committee investigating Benghazi?

We have known since 30 October 2012 that these two officers…

1. Were ordered to STAND DOWN in Benghazi

2. Ignored those orders3. Were relieved of duty for refusing orders to STAND DOWN

We know from theunclassified cables between Benghazi and DC and the subsequent Executive Brief, that cables were firing in all directions in the hours before and during the Benghazi attack that ended in the brutal death of four Americans.

General Ham was head of AFRICOM and Commander of the 2011 US-NATO operation to depose Gadhafi in Libya.

Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette was in command of the Carrier Strike Group Three (CSG-3), then deployed in Middle Eastern waters during the attack on Benghazi.

Both Ham and Gaouette reported receiving the same desperate cables for additional security and backup that Obama administration officials received and ignored from Benghazi. They did not ignore those desperate calls for help ringing out from the Benghazi installation on 11 September 2012.

No, both Ham and Gaouette attempted to launch ready response teams in the region capable of provided the much needed assistance during the seven hour long assault on Benghazi. Both were then relieved of command for their actions, described by the US Military as “allegations of inappropriate leadership judgment.

General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready to deploy to Benghazi. Then, General Ham received the order to stand down. His response was “screw it,” - he was going to help anyway.

Within minutes after issuing an order to deploy his ready response team, Ham’s second in command apprehended the General and told him that he was now relieved of his command. Ham knows who issued the order to STAND DOWN as well as the order to relieve him of his command at AFRICOM.

Adm. Gaouette had also received the startling requests for support as the attack unfolded in Benghazi. Like Ham, he readied a response from Carrier Strike Group Three (CSG-3). Gaouette was also ordered to STAND DOWN and like Ham, he decided to refuse those orders. Gaouette readied vital intelligence and communications operations for an extraction effort to be launched by Ham.

What were the “inappropriate judgments” of these two decorated Military leaders? Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Navy's chief spokesman, declined to discuss the investigation.

What we know is that these two highly unusual acts to remove two highly decorated commanders is related to the 11 September 2012 strike on Benghazi. We also know that the congressional investigation has not yet called these valiant men in to give testimony.

We know that months’ worth of warnings and requests for additional security at Benghazi we ignored and denied by the Clinton run State Department and that someone gave the DoD order to STAND DOWN when American troops were in the region and ready to assist.

We know that the Obama administration manufactured a lie about some obscure anti-Islam youtube clip that had nothing whatsoever to do with the events of 11 September 2012 Benghazi. We know that the Obama administration is holding that filmmaker in prison today. We know that Benghazi survivors have been threatened and silenced.

But most of all, we know that Gen. Ham and Adm. Gaouette can provide very real answers to a laundry list of very important questions regarding the Benghazi attacks and Issa’s alleged investigation.

On 23 April 2013, Five House Committees investigating Benghazi issued a jointInterim Progress Report. In it, all five committees fail to ask the right questions and all five demonstrate a clear intent to keep the truth about Benghazi under wraps, though the report does confirm almost everything stated herein.

The attack in Benghazi of 11 September, 2012 is now almost eight months old and yet, the truth about that attack is still a distant fog sheltered by government officials engaged in blatant obstruction of justice, made possible by the help of a totally incompetent or complicit press.If you want to know what really happened in Benghazi, demand that Issa’s congressional committee subpoena both Gen. Ham and Adm. Gaouette to testify before the House

Someone is responsible for the murder of Americans in Benghazi and the lies that followed. That someone, in fact all who are involved in the Benghazi murder and the cover up, must be held fully accountable.

JB Williams is a writer on matters of history and American politics with more than 3000 pieces published over a twenty-year span. He has a decidedly conservative reverence for the Charters of Freedom, the men and women who have paid the price of freedom and liberty for all, and action oriented real-time solutions for modern challenges. He is a Christian, a husband, a father, a researcher, writer and a business owner. He is co-founder of action organizations.

On May 8, the House Oversight Committee began hearings on the Benghazi raid that killed 4 Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. As usual, the highly paid talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have an incomplete picture of what was happening and why, describing the situation simply in terms of the Obama administration trying to coverup a foreign affairs debacle.

What really was happening was a continuation of a long-range plan by certain members of the Power Elite (PE) for world control. One of the PE's favorite tactics is the use of dialectics, and in this case it involved the alleged "good Al-Qaeda" (e.g., like the Kosovo Liberation Army which was helped by Osama bin Laden, then trained and armed in Albania by the CIA) as opposed to the "bad Al-Qaeda" (e.g., Osama bin Ladin's mujahedin in Afghanistan).

The "good Al-Qaeda" in Libya were members of an Al-Qaeda affiliate called Ansar al-Sharia (means supporters of sharia Islamic law) who were a major part of the rebel opposition (supported by the U.S./NATO) to Moammar Gadhafi's rule there. As I have written before, with the ouster of Gadhafi, important members of Al-Qaeda hold key positions in the current Libyan government. The Obama administration's view that Ansar al-Sharia wasn't a threat to us (because the U.S. had helped overthrow Gadhafi) allowed our government to pay the February 17th Martyrs Brigade, which had publicly known sympathies for Ansar al-Sharia, to help provide security for the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi. This is despite the fact that there were numerous reports the Brigade "had been implicated in the kidnapping of American citizens as well as threats against U.S. military assets" (see April 23 House Republicans interim report). The House Oversight Committee hearings are revealing what could be called a coverup by the Obama administration of its lack of defense of our mission in Benghazi and the disaster and deaths that resulted.

*******

*******

As I said earlier, though, the PE had larger concerns as part of its plan. Just as Richard Nixon waited his turn to be elected president in 1968 when the election of 1960 was stolen from him (allowing Democrats 2 terms as president), I believed that President Obama would have 2 terms despite what Limbaugh, Hannity and other leading conservatives said. Thus, it was important for President Obama not to be blamed for the Libyan fiasco before the November 2012 election. This was accomplished by President Obama being briefed that our mission members in Benghazi had been rescued just before President Obama went to bed (according to House Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa on Sean Hannity's May 7 radio show).

At this point, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was given the responsibility over what was thought to be a situation under control. However, events moved quickly and the "saved" mission members at the "safe house" soon came under attack and 4 were killed, apparently before the president as commander-in-chief could send the necessary help. Thus, President Obama had an excuse as to why he didn't act at the time to save the mission members. If House Republicans try to impeach President Obama over what happened in Benghazi and its aftermath, and if they succeed, the Democrats in the Senate will simply vote not to convict him just as they did when President Clinton was impeached.

Of course, Hillary can't blame Obama, because that would damage her support among Democrats if she runs for president in 2016. This places her, though, in a Catch-22, because if she accepts the blame herself, that also would hurt her chances among the voters for her election as president in 2016. Either way, she is hurt politically, and that's what the PE wants because it would leave Vice-President Joe Biden as the Democratic presidential nominee in 2016. Biden could then be counted on to gaffe his way to defeat to Jeb Bush, who is the PE's primary (but not only) choice to be elected president in 2016 (just as Nixon was in 1968).

Bush's "moderate" views regarding illegal immigrants and other issues makes him the PE's perfect choice, a puppet like previous presidents, Democrats and Republicans alike. As the PE's puppet, Jeb Bush will "reluctantly" accept the world currency (the "Phoenix") in 2018 as the only choice we have to rise from the ashes (see the cover of THE ECONOMIST for January 9, 1988 which I put in my NewsWithViews column, "Bold New World and Forces Too Powerful, Part 3") of a global economic catastrophe. Currently, economic reporters like Rebecca Jarvis of ABC News and others are gleefully announcing new stock market highs as a sign of economic recovery under the Obama administration. They are oblivious to the PE's plan to have all of this crash after 2 years, so that by 2016, President Obama's last year in office, the American and global economies will plunge.

On April 29, New York University economist Nouriel Roubini (who correctly predicted the financial crisis beginning in 2008) said the stock and bond markets can rise for another 2 years as the Federal Reserve maintains its massive easing campaign (see May 1 MONEYNEWS article by Dan Weil). Roubini said the Fed is "creating massive fraud," and he indicated that the current slowdown in global economic growth should be pushing stocks, commodities and bond yields lower, so that when things do come back down to earth, the economy will suffer a depression rather than a recession.

See the Weil article for this as well as for Edward Pinto's (former chief Fannie Mae credit officer) comment that the recent housing market recovery is "eerily familiar to the previous government policy-induced boon that went bust in 2006, and from which the country is still struggling to recover."

To demonstrate an attitude in Congress (supposedly "public servants") concerning the public, when I called the House Oversight Committee to ask a simple factual question about Benghazi, no one returned my call. And when I called my state representative on the committee, Rep. Patrick McHenry, I was advised to contact the office of the committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa. But I had already called his committee staff and received no return call from them.

Dennis Laurence Cuddy, historian and political analyst, received a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (major in American History, minor in political science). Dr. Cuddy has taught at the university level, has been a political and economic risk analyst for an international consulting firm, and has been a Senior Associate with the U.S. Department of Education.

Cuddy has also testified before members of Congress on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. Dr. Cuddy has authored or edited twenty seven books and booklets, and has written hundreds of articles appearing in newspapers around the nation, including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and USA Today. He has been a guest on numerous radio talk shows in various parts of the country, such as ABC Radio in New York City, and he has also been a guest on the national television programs USA Today and CBS's Nightwatch.

E-Mail: Not Available

*******

Benghazi and Boston: Maintaining the Momentum

Obama administration’s criminal culpability in that tragedy, Absolute treason of the press
By Erik Rush

When President Obama jokingly referred to himself as a former “Muslim socialist” at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on April 27, several publications later quoting him scrubbed the word “Muslim” from the text. Why? Did editors perceive something imprudent with respect to their agenda in advertising that tidbit? Would there have been something offensive in representing Obama’s utterance of Moosleem in those characteristic, dulcet tones?

It’s not like his affected accent would have translated into print…

All kidding aside: The House Oversight Committee hearings this week on the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya were extremely revealing on three levels. One, of course, was the information finally revealed as the whistleblowers were identified and Americans were able to hear their riveting accounts of the events on the ground that night.
Two: Though it has been established that perhaps a majority of Republican lawmakers are treasonous, progressive whores, it appears that there are at least a few who are serious about preserving the republic and who grasp the gravity of the Obama administration’s crimes. This is not only gratifying, but certainly could be integral to extricating this obscene cabal.

Absolute treason of the press

Three is the absolute treason of the press. This may not be surprising to the reader, given their comportment in recent years, but their level of abject propaganda and obsequious toadying during the hearings was unparalleled. Few of the alphabet television networks touched on the hearings at all, and those that did relegated much of their coverage to hidden nooks and crannies on their websites.

This week, it was established that a stand down order was indeed transmitted to Special Forces personnel on the ground an hour from the beleaguered compound in Benghazi. Whomever received it is not likely to have spoken with the President directly, so he will not be obliged to admit to same, even if a high-level cabinet member ultimately makes such an assertion.

It may be unfortunate and maddening, but we may never get a straight answer on the origination of that order, even though common sense dictates that given the circumstances of that night, it would have to have come from President Obama.

The plethora of lies told to date by members of the administration will be difficult enough for them to weasel out of. When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asserted earlier that no requests for additional security ever came from embassy staff, she painted herself into a bit of a corner; it is clear that she lied under oath. The numerous transformations of the administration’s official talking points alone could keep investigators occupied for months.

In resolving Benghazi, Obama may attempt to sacrifice someone who is at present, or was once a member of his cabinet. It takes a significant suspension of disbelief to accept that a stand down order would not have come directly from Obama, but it is extremely unlikely that he will ever acknowledge this. Here, the pursuit of justice will largely rely upon the follow-up by those with jurisdiction. That would be Congress, and we still have the power to motivate them.

Something very significant was revealed from the aforementioned subterfuge of the press, something which ought to give us hope: Despite the scant press coverage, Americans’ demand for news on Benghazi (as reflected online on the national news organizations’ websites) was overwhelming. So, even though the “state-run” establishment press remains dedicated to Obama, their influence – at least on the topic of Benghazi – appears to be waning.

Obama administration’s criminal culpability in that tragedy

If this is the case, it is imperative that we – and this means you, if you are an American – continue to vigorously press Congress toward action and engage our circles of influence. It may seem trite or unlikely, but to me it is self-evident that social media is one of the most invaluable weapons we have against tyranny in America (This is of course why the administration has been attempting to gain control over the Internet, but I digress). The widespread, potent influence of citizen journalists and networking Americans simply cannot be underestimated.

We must vociferously assert and re-assert the truth about this administration, and the state of our Union. We must do it until we are sick of doing it. We must press the issues of Benghazi, but we must also press investigations into the Boston Marathon bombings. The Obama administration’s criminal culpability in that tragedy may be on a par with Benghazi and the Fast and Furious gun running scandal – or worse. It is only by maintaining momentum that we might awaken a majority of our fellow citizens to the fact that our government is not only a criminal enterprise, but is in collusion with or sworn enemies – a fact that yet remains beyond many Americans’ ability to conceptualize.

Erik Rush is a New York-born columnist, author and speaker who writes sociopolitical commentary for numerous online and print publications. In February of 2007, Erik was the first to break the story of President (then Senator) Barack Obama’s ties to militant Chicago preacher Rev. Jeremiah Wright on a national level, which ignited a media firestorm that smolders to this day. His

After 8 months, the whistle blowers are coming forward and the truth about Benghazi is shredding Obama’s treasonous cover up and lies.Obama position

The attack on Benghazi was merely a response to a You Tube video on Islam by a guy no one had ever heard of before. The people were reacting and protesting…you know, they had some sort of reason for attacking. US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said on at least 6 different shows on Sept. 16th that the attack was in response to the You Tube video. Hillary and Obama boldly agreed.

Obama also put out in is official statement that no one was told to stand down. Help

was not denied, yet according to the SEALS Doherty and Woods who were working with the CIA in Benghazi, they heard the shooting and promptly called for help. They were told to ‘stand down.’ When the shooting continued they called for help again and were told to stand down again. They kept shooting and killing as many terrorists as they could while trying to get help.

It was confirmed that there was a drone flying overhead and a C-130 aircraft heavily armed that was in the area that could have responded. It was told to stand down as well. Heroes Doherty and Woods were eventually killed while Obama betrayed his troops and nation. Blood was on his hands when he got on the plane the next day to campaign in Las Vegas.Then we saw the sea of spin and lies grow.Now in the latest investigation

Greg Hicks, deputy chief of mission in Libya, Mark Thompson, official with State Department Counter Terrorism Bureau and Eris Nordstrom-diplomatic security officer weighed in. Their testimonies also expose the lies and lack of help given at the hands of Obama. Hicks said to CNN that he thought they should have sent a plane in. Well, DA…there was an armed C-130 right there they could have used who were told to stand down.

Regardless of what overt or covert things Ambassador Stevens was involved with, it is a known fact now, supported by the statements of Libya’s own President, that Al Keada lead the attack and it was a planned one.

It is also a confirmed fact that Obama lied and he did tell those requesting immediate help to stand down at least 3 times. Obama is the only one, who had the authority to tell them to stand down and the bold help that could have gotten to them all in time didn’t.

With the heat turning to lava for Obama and Hillary now, the lawyer/Saul Alinsky games are growing… ‘I didn’t know that’ ‘I turned it over and trusted their judgment’ ‘I don’t recall’ ‘It already happened, lets move on’ It is the Obama circus of lies, deception, corruption and treason.As the stage lights are shined yet again on Obama’s lies and treason, will Congress and the Senate grow some private parts and make Obama and all involved pay with arrests, impeachment or treason charges??? This is not about Democrat or Republican it is about murders, lies and betrayal that happened on Obama’s watch by Obama’s own hand.

Sorry Obama, you can’t blame this one on Bush or the Tea Party.

Join me each night from 7-10pm Pacific at www.therothshow.com as we explore these and other issues.

With all due respect,the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?" - Hillary Clinton

Last week White House Press Secretary Jay Carney observed that the murder of four Americans in Benghazi last fall occurred “a long time ago.”

Apparently eight months is a really long time to some folks. For such people “a long time ago” seems to serve as a catch-all phrase encompassing things like the Civil War, the Paleolithic era, and the killings in Benghazi. For those of us with a more nuanced sense of time and reality, however, last fall is not so very long ago.

I would imagine that for the friends and families of those Americans killed in Benghazi last 9/11 the memories are quite fresh indeed. Chris Stevens, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, R.I.P.

“We the people” have been lied to by the Obama Administration from the get-go regarding what transpired in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. Why? Why were we lied to, and why were Woods and Doherty, who fought bravely for several hours against overwhelming odds, abandoned by their countrywhen the ways and means to come to their aid were available? Why—and who is responsible?

One hopes that starting this Wednesday, when the first of the American Benghazi survivors to appear before Congress start their testimony, we will finally get some truth.

In the meantime you might want to note that in Hillary Clinton’s statement to Congress quoted above—in between “four dead Americans” and “what difference does it make?”—she managed to slip in two “straw-men” or red herrings. (I especially like the option of “guys out for a walk” deciding that attacking an American compound would be just the thing to liven up a boring evening. “Anyone bring a mortar?”).

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Perhaps like Lady Macbeth, Hillary Clinton is having trouble getting rid of splattered blood stains.Born June 4, 1951 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Served in the U.S. Navy from 1970-1974 in both UDT-21 (Underwater Demolition Team) and SEAL Team Two. Worked as a commercial diver in the waters off of Scotland, India, and the United States. While attending the University of South Florida as a journalism student in 1998 was presented with the “Carol Burnett/University of Hawaii AEJMC Research in Journalism Ethics Award,” 1st place undergraduate division. (The annual contest was set up by Carol Burnett with money she won from successfully suing a national newspaper for libel). Awarded US Army, US Navy, South African, and Russian jump wings. Graduate of NOLS (National Outdoor Leadership School, 1970). Member of Mensa, and lifetime member of the UDT/SEAL Association.

It will be exactly 40 years ago this May 17th that the Senate Watergate Committee, a special, broad committee convened by the United States Senate, began hearings to investigate the Watergate burglaries and a criminal cover-up of those activities. At the epicenter of those hearings was then-President Richard Nixon.

Just over a year later, the committee released its 1,254-page report of findings. When the dust settled, forty administration officials were indicted and several of Nixon’s aides were charged and convicted for obstruction of justice and other crimes.

A cover-up pointed directly to the White House. Facing impeachment proceedings, then-President Richard M. Nixon resigned, assuming his place in American history as the only president ever to resign. It was described as the worst scandal in U.S. history… perhaps until now.

If history tells us anything, it tells us that it’s not just about the crime, it’s also about the cover-up. It’s about seeking the truth but being stonewalled at every turn, and being treated as subjects undeserving of the truth rather than citizens asking reasonable questions but being denied answers.

The same level of inquiries that unraveled the complexities of the Watergate cover-up are required to unravel the ball of lies that surrounds the September 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including a sitting U.S. Ambassador. Within this ball of lies, however, exists not only the covert agenda of an administration, but the fate of the world. Unraveling this ball of lies will reveal official government actions that have been and continue to be performed in our name but without our consent. It will reveal a government agenda that has have spun wildly out of control, leaving no one accountable as we stand at a very critical moment in world history. It’s about a cover-up of monumental proportions that is reminiscent of, but hardly in league with, the cover-up of a generation ago.

Today, the stakes are much higher, as we stand at the precipice of a global conflict because of deeds being done in our name under a level of unprecedented and unchecked deception. Ultimately, it’s about getting the truth, which has been kept from each of us through lies of commission and omission, clever semantics, and outright refusals to provide answers to important questions. We were force-fed a preplanned lie from day one, much like the thinly veiled cover story of the Watergate burglary, but with much greater consequences.

All investigations, however, must have a beginning. On May 8, 2013, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will conduct a single, day-long hearing on the events that took place in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including a U.S. ambassador. Interestingly, the hearing is being conducted under the title Benghazi: Exposing Failure and Recognizing Courage.

This one-day hearing is being convened to “examine evidence that Obama Administration officials have attempted to suppress information about errors and reckless misjudgments,” and will include some witness testimony. That seems to be a fairly ambitious agenda for a single day of investigation in Washington. It is, however, a start, and an opportunity for all Americans to see just how deep the lies go.

Demanding answers

The hearing is a result, in part, of the “interim progress report” released by the House committee on Benghazi last week. Clearly, the information contained in this and other reports illustrates that there is a much deeper, much larger, and much more sinister plan that is being covered up by administration officials.

Forty years ago the cover-up of the motives behind a burglary produced some 319 hours of televised testimony. By comparison, one day of testimony is hardly enough time to conduct a serious investigation, considering what is at stake for our nation.

The events in Benghazi must be understood in the context in which they occurred. A thorough, in-depth investigation will reveal that attack was the result of our broader foreign policy of taking down the leadership of other nations, especially in this case, Libya and Syria. An agenda that has ignited the fuse for World War III. An agenda of militarization of the diplomatic-military-industrial complex that puts us on the road to Damascus at excessive speeds and with reckless abandon.

Given the significance of events, a broader investigation is needed, much like a generation ago. The reason a broader investigation is necessary must also be understood. So too must the limitations of a single day of hearings.

The big picture

We know that the operations in Benghazi and throughout Libya were coordinated by a number of different government agencies and sub-agencies. Coordination of the activities of these agencies most likely occurred at the behest of persons outside of any individual agencies at an administration security council level. This results in compartmentalization, where one individual, group or agency only has information specific to their part in the operation.

Additionally, the money for the contractors involved in the operations taking place in Libya might have come from one agency or program, although the administration of the contractors might have been directed by officers or agents of yet another agency. When understood in this context, we see that there can be little accountability of the larger operation, especially within the limitations of a single day of testimony.

Due to this operational compartmentalization, various individuals involved in Benghazi have only a single piece of a much larger puzzle. While they might want or feel the need to come forward, they are hamstrung by not having the complete operational picture. Coming forward in a limited venue, without the benefit of inter-agency operational plans, would prevent the pieces of the larger puzzle from being connected. Given such limitations, the testimony of such witnesses could be improperly questioned or even impeached.
To be certain, this administration is very well aware of this compartmentalization and will fight any call for a broader inquiry of all the agencies involved. A broader investigation, or the seating of a Select Committee on the attacks and subsequent handling of Benghazi, would provide a proper venue where all agencies can be assembled and questioned so that the components of the bigger picture can be gathered.

Tugging at the ball of lies: Some questions requiring answers

What are some of the questions that need to be asked and answered in this hearing? To fully understand the nature of these questions, it is important to understand that Benghazi served as a logistics hub for weapons transfers out of Libya and into the hands of anti-Assad terrorists. Weapons were collected under a buyback program of sorts, to remove them from the hands of the terrorists. Is that what really happened? Important background about Benghazi can be found in the compendium of articles listed at the end of this report.

Meanwhile, here are but a few important questions that need to be asked and completely answered:

What purposes did the five-(5) Saudi/Qatari-owned warehouses situated in and around Benghazi serve?

What was the disposition of the arms collected in Libya? Where did they go? Were the aforementioned warehouses used for arms storage, and if so, why?

Exactly who at the U.S. State Department was supervising this arms “buyback” program?

What is the relationship between the U.S. government and the shipping company that brought Ambassador Stevens to Libya, along with CIA assets?

At any time, were there weapons transferred between boats located about 12 miles offshore of Libya? If so, under what circumstances and conditions?

Were there any violation of international arms agreements committed?

This administration would be well advised to keep in mind the fact that lawyers in a courtroom setting know better than to never to ask questions to which they don’t already know the answers.

Where’s the media?

Forty years ago, investigative reporters and journalists sensed blood in the water and chased the blood trail until the bitter end. They operated with less information than today. Yet today, investigating exactly what transpired in Benghazi seems to be limited to the intrepid nature of Adam Housley and Jennifer Griffen, both of Fox News, and perhaps a few others. They are leading the pack, however, and seem to be the only modern day investigative journalists who could unravel the cover-up that is Benghazi, rivaling those who broke the Watergate cover-up a generation ago.

The differences between Watergate and Benghazi are as many as the years that separate the two events, and even more significant. The fate of not only our nation, but of all nations, hang in the balance.

Douglas J. Hagmann and his son, Joe Hagmann host The Hagmann & Hagmann Report, a live Internet radio program broadcast each weeknight from 8:00-10:00 p.m. ET.

Douglas Hagmann, founder & director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, and a multi-state licensed private investigative agency. Doug began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public awareness through his website.

If you thought the Benghazi cover-up story was a thing of the past, think again. According to Representative Trey Gowdy (R-SC), more hearings are imminent, and they promise to be “explosive.”

Appearing on Fox News yesterday afternoon, Gowdy indicated that they may also - for the first time - include testimony from people who were at the consulate the night of the attack.

Asked if eyewitnesses would be questioned, Gowdy said “I am bound by certain measures of confidentiality, but I would tell you that you are getting very warm. Shall we just say that?”

The goal, said Gowdy, is to find out “what happened during the siege itself and why aid was not sent,” and to learn whether subsequent statements made by the Obama administration were “grossly negligent or whether it was an intentional misleading.”

Considering that, so far, there’s been nothing but a deafening silence coming from the Benghazi survivors, this new round of hearings should be very interesting….

*******

Robert Laurie’s column is distributed by CainTV, which can be found at caintv.com

We are witnessing one of the biggest government cover-ups since Watergate. A cover-up that involves murder, arms trafficking, and lies by high ranking officials under oath.

It involves the murderous attacks in Benghazi, and congressional investigators just released a 46-page interim progress report that at least exposes Hillary Rodham Clinton and the White House lying under oath. Where’s the accountability? Where’s the outrage? Where’s the media?
A 46-page interim progress report of an ongoing investigation across five House Committees by the U.S. House of Representatives was released on Tuesday, April 23, 2013. The executive summary states that former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton signed off on a reduction of diplomatic security forces suggesting that this reduction of security was, in large part, to blame for the attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. The report emphasizes that this is “inconsistent” with her sworn testimony of January 23, 2013. Simply stated, Hillary Rodham Clinton lied under oath to congressional investigators.
Additionally, the interim report states that official press talking points issued by the U.S. intelligence community were altered by the White House and Senior State Department officials on Saturday, September 15, 2012 for the sole purpose of protecting the State Department. It was emphasized that these alterations were not for protecting any classified information whatsoever.
For those of us heavily involved in investigating and reporting the events in Benghazi, the interim report merely confirms what we’ve long known. But what isn’t being addressed by this report or elsewhere? Here is what you are not being told.The security issue is a diversion
Much like blaming some obscure internet video for the motivation behind the attacks, everyone, including government investigators, is citing insufficient pre-attack diplomatic security for the deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. While such security for the American embassy in Tripoli was indeed a concern, it is not the key issue, but a diversion from the real issue. The real issue will open up a Pandora’s box of criminal activity the likes of which that would rock our nation to its very core.
As I have written in past investigative reports, there was never an embassy or consulate in Benghazi.

Now innocuously referenced in this report as the “Benghazi mission,” the facilities in Benghazi served as a logistics center for arms and weapons transfers from Libya ultimately destined for the anti-Assad terrorists in Syria. It was used by the “State Department’s CIA,” which is quite different than the actual CIA known by Americans. It is here that I am providing a little known fact, albeit one that creates angst among those seventh floor occupants of the official CIA headquarters and in the uppermost echelons of the U.S. State Department.

In actuality, there are two Central Intelligence Agencies - unofficially, of course. The most “unofficial” agency works under the diplomatic cover of the U.S. State Department. It is in this venue where we will find the trinkets of treason inside Pandora’s box. It is here that the components of treason exist, covered by a cache of weapons and the bodies of the dead. It is from this covert intelligence operation directed by the highest levels of our government where we will find the truth about Benghazi and expose the lies about Libya and the globalist plans that have ignited the fuse for World War III.The survivors of Benghazi
We know that not everyone involved in the attack at Benghazi was killed. According to all official reports and verified by this author, there were at least 31 survivors of the Benghazi attack evacuated from the Benghazi “mission” about 90 minutes after the attack began. The 31 survivors and the bodies of Ambassador Stevens, Mr. Smith, Mr. Woods, and Mr. Doherty were ultimately transported from Tripoli to Ramstein, Germany, on a U.S. C-17, touching down at Ramstein at 10:19 PM on September 12, 2012.

So, who are they, where are they, and why haven’t we seen or heard any testimony from them?

On Wednesday, April 17, 2013, newly appointed Secretary of State John Kerry testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee regarding his knowledge of Benghazi. In one specific 90-second exchange between Congressman Dana Rorhabacher and Kerry as
shown in this video, Kerry perpetuated the lie that there is nothing being withheld from congress or the American people about Benghazi, including any information that could be offered by the survivors.
What is evident from that exchange, however, is that Kerry is following the lead from former Secretary of State Clinton. His reticence to answer specific questions became quite clear by this one particular statement: “We’ve got a lot more important things to move on to and get done.” If one listens closely, the bluster from Hillary Rodham Clinton and her shrill cries of “what difference does it make” is still faintly audible in chambers.
What appears to be eluding most is the real reason the survivors have yet to speak to investigators. The Obama regime cannot allow the witnesses to be interviewed, as they are witnesses or operatives to illegal international arms trafficking coordinated by the U.S. Department of State. Weapons warehouses
Testimony from the witnesses might disclose the existence of five warehouses located in Benghazi,

Misratah and Derna having direct connections to… Saudi Arabia. Their testimony might reveal that the U.S. State Department’s CIA was using the American taxpayers’ money, budgeted through congress, to collect arms under the auspices of taking them from the terrorists to make post-Qaddafi’s Libya a safer place.

In reality, however, the operational weapons were being collected and transported to these five warehouses in preparation of their transport to points north, to Jordan and Turkey for their ultimate use in Syria to destabilize the Assad government. For the inquiring minds, it is important to note that this process continues, although now the weapons are originating from Croatia, which happens to be where American personnel were busy training the anti-Assad terrorists on that fateful September day last year.
The witnesses cannot be allowed to talk freely for they might reveal that the U.S. is working directly with Saudi Arabia, through the Muslim Brotherhood out of Egypt, to provide our servicemen and women and our military assets to expand their pan-Islamic kingdom to the backdoor of Iran and the front door of Russia, a situation that is unacceptable to Russia’s Vladimir Putin.The biggest lie
The report as well as the feigned cooperation of officials from the Obama regime does not address the biggest lies of all. The U.S., by direct orders of Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, are working closely with the Saudis to destroy and remake nations for a larger plan drafted by larger global interests.

It’s about vying for position at the table of the globalists. It’s about oil and energy, wealth and power, but the lie is so big that few can comprehend the larger picture. This larger picture, by the way, is disturbing on many levels, and involves decades of history rich in deception by both political parties. Its roots can be traced back to the creation of ARAMCO in the 1930s, followed through the years of the twentieth century as the incestuous relationship between the Saudi Royals and the U.S., its leaders and elected officials, forged clandestine deals that existed on September 11, 2001, the infamous meeting on the Truman balcony, and the election of a Saudi “cutout” in the person of Barack Hussein Obama in 2008. It’s about the voluminous influx of campaign contributions to Obama in 2008, in amounts small enough to avoid reporting their origins. It’s about a takeover of America.

Whether it’s hand holding or a slobbering kiss on the lips between U.S. presidents and the Royal family, or a bow so deep that all Americans can see is the backside of a leader, the view is the same. Whether sealed with a kiss or a bow, the lies continue. Regarding the latter, the attack in Benghazi and even the bombings in Boston occurred under a full moon, at least for all Americans. And I’m not talking about the celestial body.
How does Boston fit into this beyond what I’ve already written? Stay tuned, as there is much more to come. The lie is bigger than you can imagine, and there are more trinkets of treason to be exposed.

A searing new Interim Progress Report released by the GOP chairmen of five House committees reveals the disturbing extent of the Obama administration’s deceit and manipulation over the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

As the 43-page document details, not only was gross incompetence to blame for the success of the attack that cost four Americans their lives, but a concerted effort at the highest levels of government was undertaking to cover up the debacle, deceive the public and shield officials, including then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama, from responsibility.

Ranking Democrats on the same five committees, who said they were not included in writing the report, dismissed it as politically motivated. “You are sacrificing accuracy in favor of partisanship,” they said in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH).

Hardly. Dividing the timeline into three sections—before, during and after the attack—the report paints a damning picture of the Hillary Clinton-led State Department, which knew “the threat environment in Benghazi was high and that the Benghazi compound was vulnerable and unable to withstand an attack, yet the Department continued to systematically withdraw security personnel.”

The smoking gun revealed in the report—contrary to Hillary Clinton’s congressional testimony that requests for additional security in Benghazi never reached her—was that “an April 2012 State Department cable bearing Secretary Hillary Clinton’s signature acknowledged then-Ambassador Cretz’s formal request for additional security assets but ordered the withdrawal of security elements to proceed as planned.” A Senate

report, “Flashing Red: A Special Report on the Terrorist Attack at Benghazi,” released on December 31, confirmed the lack of security, citing “extremely poor security in a threat environment that was ‘flashing red.’”

President Obama was blamed for the lack of security as well, in that he “failed to proactively anticipate the significance of September 11 and provide the Department of Defense with the authority to launch offensive operations beyond self-defense.” The report noted that the Intelligence Community was not to blame for anything, in that they “collected considerable information about the threats in the region, and disseminated regular assessments to senior U.S. officials warning of the deteriorating security environment in Benghazi, which included threats to American interests, facilities, and personnel.”

The 2013 report’s most scathing assessments concern the post-attack response by the Obama administration that “willfully perpetuated a deliberately misleading and incomplete narrative that the attacks evolved from a political demonstration caused by a YouTube video.” The report excoriated the administration’s so-called “talking points,” revealing that after a White House Deputies Meeting on Saturday, September 15, 2012, the Administration altered the talking points to remove references to the likely participation of Islamic extremists in the attacks… removed references to the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya, including information about at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi.

Furthermore, the report states, “Senior State Department officials requested—and the White House approved—that the details of the threats, specifics of the previous attacks, and previous warnings be removed.”

The timeline following the attack reveals a carefully orchestrated disinformation campaign that began with the president, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice peddling the YouTube video story, even as government emails surfacing six weeks later revealed that both the State Department and the White House were told during the attack that terror group Ansar al-Sharia took credit for it. The video charade continued until September 19, when Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, became the first administration official to label Benghazi a terrorist attack, even as Obama continued to push the video lie a day later. On September 24, during a taping of “The View,” the president still refused to label Benghazi a terrorist attack. “We’re still doing an investigation,” he said.

As the facts became known, Clinton blamed “the fog of war” for her initial lies, while White House spokesman Jay Carney claimed the White House was giving out the best information it had at the time, but the information had “evolved.”

Other lies by the administration are also forcefully rebutted in the 2013 report

Other lies by the administration are also forcefully rebutted in the 2013 report, including claims that the talking points were altered to protect classified information of the FBI investigation, noting that the FBI itself “approved a version of the talking points with significantly more information about the attacks and previous threats than the version that the State Department requested,” and that even “limited due diligence” of an Intelligence Committee (IC) report would have made it clear that “the situation was more complex than the narrative provided by Ambassador Susan Rice and others in the Administration.”

The final post-attack conclusions noted that the administration’s decision to conduct an FBI investigation, as opposed to one by military or other intelligence sources, “contributed to the government’s lack of candor” and “significantly delayed U.S. access to key witnesses and evidence and undermined the government’s ability to bring those responsible for the attacks to justice in a timely manner. “

That delay was underscored by the reality that 15 days after that attack, it was reported by CNN that the FBI was still waiting to get access to the area. That would be the same CNN that found ambassador Christopher Stevens’ journal on the floor of the unsecured compound—three days after the attack.

Unsurprisingly, the White House pushed back Wednesday, accusing Republicans of creating a

political distraction. White House National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden claimed that the report goes over old ground and that some of its conclusions conflict with those reached during an internal investigation conducted by the State Department itself. “The State Department’s Accountability Review Board—the independent body charged with reviewing the attacks and evaluating the interagency response—released its report which specifically found that the interagency response was ‘timely and appropriate’ and ‘helped save the lives of two severely wounded Americans,’ while also making important recommendations to improve security that we are in the process of implementing,” she said.

Hayden is, unfortunately for the Obama administration, misrepresenting reality. The thrust of the State Department’s Accountability Review Board’s report was completely different. “Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department‚ resulted in a special mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place,” it said.

Hillary Clinton supposedly took “full responsibility” for those deficiencies—responsibility best described by Clinton herself in a testy exchange with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, when he accused her of blaming non-existent protests for the deaths of four Americans. “What difference at this point does it make?” Clinton asked.

Furthermore, the four officials ostensibly terminated because of their mistakes leading up to the attack remained on the State Department payroll. And while spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Clinton “has accepted [Assistant Secretary of State] Eric Boswell’s decision to resign as assistant secretary for diplomatic security, effective immediately,” she neglected to mention that Boswell gave up only the presidential appointment as assistant secretary, not his other assignments. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) illuminated reality. “State Department officials proclaimed ...that heads would roll…Now we see that the discipline is a lie and all that has happened is the shuffling of the deck chairs.”

White House spokesman Jay Carney defended Clinton, contending that her signature on the

damning cable mentioned above was standard procedure for all diplomatic cables, essentially meaning that any State Department cable has the head of the Department’s signature on it. “In this way, Secretary Clinton and others before her signed hundreds of thousands of cables” as secretary, he said. “Efforts to politicize this have failed in the past and they are not helpful to the broad national security interests we share.” Neither is the fact that Carney is apparently suggesting that Clinton signed something she didn’t read, despite the deadly consequences that occurred as a result.

Regardless, the Republican chairmen weren’t buying it. “An April 19, 2012, cable bearing Secretary Clinton’s signature acknowledged requests for additional security, but nevertheless ordered the withdrawal of security assets to proceed as planned,” they said in a letter to the White House. “Given the gravity of this issue, we request that you immediately make the April 19, 2012, State Department cable public.” So far the White House has not responded.

Obama Administration officials have attempted to suppress information about errors and reckless misjudgments

Despite the stonewalling, House Republicans will press on. On Wednesday, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee announced that the investigation into Benghazi will continue next month. This part of the investigation is likely to become compelling, because it will include testimony from whistleblowers within the administration. “Next month, the Oversight Committee will convene a hearing on the Benghazi terrorist attacks to examine evidence that Obama Administration officials have attempted to suppress information about errors and reckless misjudgments,” said Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA). “The American people still don’t have the full truth about what happened both before and after the murders of four brave Americans.”

Adding fuel to Issa’s fire are the allegations made by former special ops forces that the revelations contained in the current report don’t go far enough, especially regarding why the administration seemingly abandoned its responsibility to protect those who came under attack. “As a former soldier it pains me to think that for hours upon hours and more hours they waited in vain for someone to come to their rescue,” retired Special Forces Col. Jamie Williamson told the WashingtonFree Beacon.

Williamson is the cofounder of OPSEC, a non-profit organization that protects US special ops forces and intelligence operatives from “political exploitation and policies, and the misuse of classified information, that unnecessarily exposes them and their families to greater risk and reduces their effectiveness in keeping Americans safe.” The group is asking critical questions that remain unanswered, such as “why were no U.S. military assets immediately deployed in response?” and “why did the commander of Africom tell a member of Congress that he had available assets but was never given order to deploy them?”

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 7, then-Defense Secretary

Leon Panetta and Army Gen. Martin Dempsey insisted assets could not have reached the scene in time. Yet Panetta and Dempsey were not alerted about the attack until almost an hour after it began, and they didn’t raise the issue with Obama until their previously scheduled 5 p.m meeting, one hour and 18 minutes after the attack began. Moreover, Africom commander Carter Ham told Rep. Jason Chaffetz he was never given the order to secure the consulate in Benghazi. And according to Fox News, neither was a Special Operations team in Sigonella, Italy, despite being only two hours from Benghazi.

OPSEC also illuminated another potential hazard for the administration, claiming that the 20-30 survivors of the attack have been intimidated into remaining silent. “They’re afraid and reasonably so,” said Williamson, who says his group has had direct contact with them. “It appears there has been overt or subtle intimidation and they’re afraid to come forward with their stories.”

A March 1 letter sent to Secretary of State John Kerry by Reps. Frank Wolf (R-VA) and Jim Gerlach (R-PA) demanded the names and contact information for “as many as 30” Americans that were injured in the attack “so that we can make appropriate arrangements.”

OPSEC and other like-minded organizations are calling for a Watergate-like select committee to investigate. Rep. Wolf has been the primary advocate for such a committee, and has garnered the support of 120 lawmakers who believe that such a committee, which would have the power to issue subpoenas compelling key officials to testify, is vitally necessary.

Four dead Americans, 20-30 survivors, Americans frustrated with the media-abetted lying perpetrated by the Obama administration

Four dead Americans, 20-30 survivors, and every other American frustrated with the media-abetted lying perpetrated by the Obama administration deserve nothing less. Those on the left who deride the effort to get to the bottom of this scandal have certainly demanded much more for far less serious transgressions. That they would reject the same effort here reveals a level of ideological bankruptcy and hypocrisy that is nothing short of appalling

Arnold was an op-ed columist with the NY Post for eight years, currently writing for